Andy Coulson acquitted as trial halted, and utterly collapses

[Saracen]

Former NotW editor, and David Cameron's former Downing Street Director of Communications has been acquitted of perjury (in the trial of former MSP Tommy Sheridan) in the Scottish High Court.

Apparently, 48 hours ago, the judge ruled there was simply no case to answer, and did so stopping the trial about halfway through. Reporting was blocked, giving the Crown 48 hours to appeal that decision, but they have decided not to do so.

So, Coulson is acquitted, with the ruling as 'no case to answer".

That's a pretty conclusive booting out of the case against him.

It almost makes me wonder about witchhunts.

Of course, this is the perjury trial, not about phone hacking.


Source: BBC TV reports, but it'll no doubt be on websites soon, if it's not already.

[TheAnimus]

Well, this is going to be interesting to see.

I'm not sure if I should reach for some popcorn or my torch and pitch fork.

[kalniel]

So he allegedly gave false evidence under oath, but that evidence wasn't relevant to the case, so it's OK.

How odd, but then, I didn't write the law on perjury.

[Biscuit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32962263

Started to hit the web. Reading it, I feel like I'm watching 'Suits' where its all about a tiny technicality somewhere.

[smargh]

If not perjury, would it not be contempt of court? If I started saying random things while giving evidence under oath, which was then found to be false, wouldn't I be told off for contempt & then be sentenced to something for that? Wouldn't all my testimony then be thrown out completely because the person giving the "evidence" had been shown to be unreliable because I gave at least one knowingly false statement?

[Saracen]

So he allegedly gave false evidence under oath, but that evidence wasn't relevant to the case, so it's OK.

How odd, but then, I didn't write the law on perjury.

Well yeah, but the thing is, perjury is more than lying under oath, or in court. That's a common misconception, and this case seems to have nicely illustrated the difference. In just about all jurisdictions, or rather, all those based on western legal principles, at least, that "relevance", or materiality, applies. In Scotland, it certainly goes back a couple of hundred years, or more. England & Wales too.